Imagine the possibilities that can arise if people actually found out what they passionately enjoy doing, and not be limited by the financial aspects... you know that pesky 'adulting'... Can you believe we follow a broken system because others said it is needed to be that way... lol Or because it's been done for this long... sad days are coming faster and faster; when many more will lose their ways of living the way they did... I'm for people to have a safe and comfortable home, people being more self-reliant in their food stuff by planting freely food forests everywhere... it's crazy we still have to pay crazy high prices for the basic utilizes... when it can be just at: maintenance fees, material costs (which they would get discounts on), and donation based to support those that bring more streamline services... plus, this retirement plan is crap... people think they will have any money left after they break wall street... lol, What a trip... how about people creating NFTs so others can support their mentors/ people that brought them Blissful experiences... easy fix... Education wouldn't be this broken system but from the mindset of; what brings one interest (passionate people sharing 'Show and Tell') Shadowing professionals and having people record for those that can't be live, there... everything is top quality... Easy fix for this reality...
i'm in law school and while i generally understood this case, i didn't understand the significance. this video helped me fully understand it. thank you!!!
I have a quiz with this tomorrow, but for APUSH!! This video is a miracle 0-0 Thanks for carrying me through APWH!! I was bound to fail the exam but watching your reviews and livestreams helped me pass with last minute study
thx, i wasnt able to make any good notes in class so this really helped! (its not for even for an ap exam but just a bachelor in belgium so you officially have international influence i guess!?)
Yeah, but this is a new subject for my channel. I’ve got to earn my space like anyone else. We’ll get there. In the meantime, let any AP Gov-ers know that the videos are there for them…
Question: Was the ruling because Marbury's case shouldn't have technically fallen under original jurisdiction and therefore Marshall couldn't issue a writ of mandamus? Or did Marshall just rule that the writs of mandamus portion of the Judiciary Act of 1802 was unconstitutional and get rid of it?
Both. According to the Court's interruption of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the SC would have original jurisdiction for Marbury's case, but they ruled the Act to be unconstitutional. Therefore, the SC didn't have original jurisdiction and Marbury was in the wrong court. The ruling also said that section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789; which granted the Supreme Court the ability to issue writs of mandamus, was unconstitutional.
Did the Court also rule as it did, and not order the writ because Madison would have ignored it and they would have looked foolish? Or is it simply not provided for in the text of Article Three in which Section 2 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction when ambassadors, public officials, or the states are a party in the case, leaving the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction in all other areas to which the federal judiciary's jurisdiction extends. Could Marshall have reasonably ordered Madison to deliver the Writ of Mandamus?
So because Justice Marshall found a law unconstitutional due to it colliding with Article III, therefore putting it out of their original jurisdiction, and declared it as so, despite it being part of a law once passed by Congress. Marshall said it was unconstitutional despite no power being given to the Supreme Court to do so. But no one really came to argue with that so Chief Justice Marshall pretty much gave the power of judicial review to the Court based on what the federalists were arguing in the Federalist Papers on the idea of checks and balances, and more specifically Federalist 51 and 78. And no one has really came to argue against the power (and they really can't do that either because that was the idea the federalists had for the judicial branch in Federalist 78 and by extension Federalist 51). I think I got it?
I'm no AP Gov Major, I'm just a curious American, but isn't it unconstitutional for a branch to empower themselves? wouldn't Potus or Congress be required to allow the Supreme Justice's the ability to interpret the constitution?
Hey, not Heimler, but a junior Political Science major. John Marshall (Supreme Court Chief Justice in this case) was a federalist appointed by John Adams (also a federalist) before Thomas Jefferson (a democratic-republican) took office. By ruling this way in Marbury v. Madison and establishing judicial review, it gave more power to the federal government, which is what federalists were for, whereas anti-federalists wanted the majority of power to be reserved for the states. The power of judicial review gives a MASSIVE amount of power to the national government through the Supreme Court, therefore supporting federalist ideals!
this is one of the most important supreme court cases? Who was wronged? Or who would have been wronged if it went the other way? Seems like a bunch of boring technicalities that couldn't have made any difference in anyone's life besides William Marbury's.
I'm still a legal novice, but I'm learning. What this case established was Judicial Review. Essentially the SC can declare any law that goes against the constitution as null and void.
Just wish he spoke faster. Don't understand why it's such a landmark case. Bunch of gobbledygook to this CJ student. God bless all of you who understand this. Choosing good ole' Miranda v. Arizona for assignment.
![Legitimacy of the JUDICIAL BRANCH [AP Gov Review Unit 2 Topic 9 (2.9)]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Blw5WJ44iqk/mqdefault.jpg)
![Legitimacy of the JUDICIAL BRANCH [AP Gov Review Unit 2 Topic 9 (2.9)]](/img/tr.png)
AP Gov exam at 7:30 in the morning tomorrow. Figured it was about time to start studying.
3 hours earlier to it than me
@@combine8269 just in spite of you I am gonna stop studying, I take it as a challenge.
ayyyy same
Same here, just reviewing this case specifically, because it's confusing asf
💀I just started
This dude's the AP Gov teacher you want. If school were taught at this pace and with this enthusiasm I'd have been invested a lot more.
Imagine the possibilities that can arise if people actually found out what they passionately enjoy doing, and not be limited by the financial aspects... you know that pesky 'adulting'...
Can you believe we follow a broken system because others said it is needed to be that way... lol
Or because it's been done for this long... sad days are coming faster and faster; when many more will lose their ways of living the way they did...
I'm for people to have a safe and comfortable home, people being more self-reliant in their food stuff by planting freely food forests everywhere... it's crazy we still have to pay crazy high prices for the basic utilizes... when it can be just at: maintenance fees, material costs (which they would get discounts on), and donation based to support those that bring more streamline services... plus, this retirement plan is crap... people think they will have any money left after they break wall street... lol, What a trip... how about people creating NFTs so others can support their mentors/ people that brought them Blissful experiences... easy fix...
Education wouldn't be this broken system but from the mindset of; what brings one interest (passionate people sharing 'Show and Tell')
Shadowing professionals and having people record for those that can't be live, there... everything is top quality...
Easy fix for this reality...
agreeee
Absolutely carrying me through this class. Not trying to read the text book, my ADHD mind learns way better from this type of fast fun teaching
Me too. My ADHD learns better through these videos. Couldn't read books very well...
how’d you do?
i'm in law school and while i generally understood this case, i didn't understand the significance. this video helped me fully understand it. thank you!!!
maybe you shouldn't be a lawyer..
@@Jacob-pv8sr lol come stop me coward
@@Jacob-pv8sr what are you gonna do, sue them?
YOU KNOW HOW MANY VIDEOS I WATCHED TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THIS CASE BEFORE I FINALLY WATCHED YOURS AND YOU EXPLAINED IT PERFECTLY
I have a quiz with this tomorrow, but for APUSH!!
This video is a miracle 0-0
Thanks for carrying me through APWH!! I was bound to fail the exam but watching your reviews and livestreams helped me pass with last minute study
I remain, your humble servant…
@@heimlershistory hahaha!!
Taking my AP Gov test tomorrow thank you for this!
Yeah me too 😔
Same🙏🏻
Bruh completely same
These cases are the first review I have done lol AND I have chem tmrw!
@@eligarcia4981 I'm so glad someone else is going through my pain.
Your energy makes me actually interested so thank you for really putting your heart into your teaching
I partially understood these cases but these videos connected the dots for me. I also love your sense of humor lol
I am in fact using the term “Ol’ sneaky Adams” to remember what case this is haha
Adams Hamilton and Washington were heroes, Jefferson was a radical Jacobin that pretended to promote "equality."
Thank you Heimler this case has always been confusing to me but you explained it so well and in an engaging way :')
1L law student here and this video was essential for my understanding of the case. Thank you!
I watched 3 videos prior to yours, and your video made me understand the topic. Thank you!
you know it's a good vid when the explanation is better than chatGPT's answer
How did you know some of us needed to watch it more than once? Great explanation
I see your Landscape of History by John Gaddis poster! Excellent book. Thanks for everything Heimler!
Good eye! Yeah, that’s one of my absolute favorites.
Can't believe somebody could make it all this easy thankyou for the help with my studies 😍 **subscribing**
Man, thanks to you I'm #1 in the class. Appreciate it man
I mean... Singlehandedly THE best explanation of this case.
excellent video and very well explained. it was easy to understand
See yall on the other side after the exam in 7 hours, WE’RE GONNA GET FIVES RAHHHH
What did you get? (I didn't take it I'm here because I'm taking gov online over the summer to get it out of the way)
WOW! Great simple explanation that I've been trying to wrap my head around.
I think I've got it now. Thank you very much! 😀😀
All three branchs of the U.S. government are equal, but the Supreme Court is more equal.
Damn, I just had a quiz on this today! I had to watch the one from 3 years ago! Where did the old intro go Heimler? 😂
Great breakdown of the IRAC here - well done, best video out there!
Been a few years, thanks for the quick refresher.
Thank you. This was a very educational video.I enjoyed every 18:15 seconds of it
Thanks for this! I’ve been out of high school for a while but this is great for my constitutional law class
Very well explained wow. i hope you continue making contents like this.
That sneaky Jefferson bit was funny asf 😂
thx, i wasnt able to make any good notes in class so this really helped! (its not for even for an ap exam but just a bachelor in belgium so you officially have international influence i guess!?)
thank you, this video really clearified every thing I needed to know :)
Great video! It’s too bad these videos are only getting a few hundred fews on each, though.
Yeah, but this is a new subject for my channel. I’ve got to earn my space like anyone else. We’ll get there. In the meantime, let any AP Gov-ers know that the videos are there for them…
@@heimlershistory oh dw I'll be back next year for AP Gov but I'm catching up on APUSH, my schools on period 6 and we're about halfway through
@@heimlershistorythis aged incredibly well. Thanks for everything!!!
Oh my gosh thank you, this is the only video I could understand
I need to learn this case for my AP gov test on Thursday. Thanks heimler ♥️ you’re the best
Well presented!
Thank you so much for this video!
Do you have a video on Plessy v. Ferguson case??
Thanks for explaining that so well.
Thank you! Have a better understanding
Wonderfully said!
Thank you, very helpful. Good definition of writ of mandamus
I needed this vid, thanks
Yep. Glad it helped…
possibly the most difficult one was on my argumentative essay. Nice 🤦🏾♂️
even as a law student this was really helpful :) thanks for the video
as a college student in American constitutional development 2 this helped a lot
Heimler I have a test tomorrow you think I can ace it?
Heck yes. 100%
good job. best video ever
So the Supreme Court ended up giving itself more power of judicial review from this case. That’s both interesting and terrifying!
This helps a lot. Thank you.
i love ur energy
Man, you are amazing
Question: Was the ruling because Marbury's case shouldn't have technically fallen under original jurisdiction and therefore Marshall couldn't issue a writ of mandamus? Or did Marshall just rule that the writs of mandamus portion of the Judiciary Act of 1802 was unconstitutional and get rid of it?
Both. According to the Court's interruption of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the SC would have original jurisdiction for Marbury's case, but they ruled the Act to be unconstitutional. Therefore, the SC didn't have original jurisdiction and Marbury was in the wrong court. The ruling also said that section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789; which granted the Supreme Court the ability to issue writs of mandamus, was unconstitutional.
Is marshal with the supreme court?
Did the Court also rule as it did, and not order the writ because Madison would have ignored it and they would have looked foolish?
Or is it simply not provided for in the text of Article Three in which Section 2 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction when ambassadors, public officials, or the states are a party in the case, leaving the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction in all other areas to which the federal judiciary's jurisdiction extends.
Could Marshall have reasonably ordered Madison to deliver the Writ of Mandamus?
So because Justice Marshall found a law unconstitutional due to it colliding with Article III, therefore putting it out of their original jurisdiction, and declared it as so, despite it being part of a law once passed by Congress. Marshall said it was unconstitutional despite no power being given to the Supreme Court to do so. But no one really came to argue with that so Chief Justice Marshall pretty much gave the power of judicial review to the Court based on what the federalists were arguing in the Federalist Papers on the idea of checks and balances, and more specifically Federalist 51 and 78. And no one has really came to argue against the power (and they really can't do that either because that was the idea the federalists had for the judicial branch in Federalist 78 and by extension Federalist 51). I think I got it?
Thank you!
Thank you for the Unstanding
Your the goat fr
Excellent
Excellent, wish you would have explained who Madison actually was before the very end.... Madison was a Cabinet Sec...got it.
I'm no AP Gov Major, I'm just a curious American, but isn't it unconstitutional for a branch to empower themselves? wouldn't Potus or Congress be required to allow the Supreme Justice's the ability to interpret the constitution?
Brilliant explanation. Was Marshall purposely trying to expand the power of the Supreme Court?
For sure
so....The constitution held for only 14 years?
ap gov exam in 2 hrs😅
I got mine in like 40 mins
good luck mines in 30
If only marbury went to a district court before the supreme court
Ty
Bruhhh, I was literally about to write "Sneaky Adams" down 🤣🤣
So did this basically give the supreme court power to do what they want?
Hey Heimler, how does this case support federalist ideals?
Hey, not Heimler, but a junior Political Science major. John Marshall (Supreme Court Chief Justice in this case) was a federalist appointed by John Adams (also a federalist) before Thomas Jefferson (a democratic-republican) took office. By ruling this way in Marbury v. Madison and establishing judicial review, it gave more power to the federal government, which is what federalists were for, whereas anti-federalists wanted the majority of power to be reserved for the states. The power of judicial review gives a MASSIVE amount of power to the national government through the Supreme Court, therefore supporting federalist ideals!
PM shout out
What’s the difference between anti-federalism and democratic republicanism?
this is one of the most important supreme court cases? Who was wronged? Or who would have been wronged if it went the other way? Seems like a bunch of boring technicalities that couldn't have made any difference in anyone's life besides William Marbury's.
I'm still a legal novice, but I'm learning. What this case established was Judicial Review. Essentially the SC can declare any law that goes against the constitution as null and void.
So the Supreme Court gave itself a power it didn't have?
Me being a foreigner learning English in her first year: 😫
Me understanding this sh*t: 😌
Old sneaky Adams adams again
Do not remind me bad memories from U.S history lol
WOW
umm..easy subscribe
anyone else watching this in law school?
This is one of the worst decisions in judicial history.
To each there own but this is so boring
You talk too fast…
Just wish he spoke faster. Don't understand why it's such a landmark case. Bunch of gobbledygook to this CJ student. God bless all of you who understand this. Choosing good ole' Miranda v. Arizona for assignment.